3 ms·

When the history books are written and all is said and done, the hubris of this moment where all the American labs decided to punk their investors and join hand

When the history books are written and all is said and done, the hubris of this moment where all the American labs decided to punk their investors and join hand in hand in agreeing to let the Chinese win forever is going to be the main story.

EGreg 18d ago
Win what? The race to the bottom always has this competitive language. “If we ban CFCs now the Chinese will win!” “If we ban chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc etc our enemies will triumph! They won’t stop!” “If we switch to biodegradeable plastic then our rivals will have an advantage.” “If we dont externalize the costs to our population, then they will, and then will win!” I think workflows can do the job agents do, 20x cheaper and more predictably and safely. They can completely displace agents, just as HFCs displaced CFCs and then we were able to ban CFCs and phase them out through international COOPERATION. The language of COOPERATION is what saves us vs COMPETITION is all about cutting corners and externalizing costs. Google the Montreal Protocol, Geneva Conventions, Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Unleaded Gasoline etc etc. Agents have got to be marginalized. They are just popular because the labs need to make a ton of money for their investors and recoup their massive spending on training models.
- airstrike 18d ago
  Those comparisons are pretty irrelevant You can't compare banning football to banning genetic experiments and say "they are both bans and therefore directly comparable"
  - EGreg 18d ago
    No one was talking about football. We're talking about replacing most uses of Agents with uses of Workflows. That's the key first step, without which the industry will cry "don't regulate us... do you want China to WIN???"
palmotea 18d ago
> When the history books are written and all is said and done, the hubris of this moment where all the American labs decided to punk their investors and join hand in hand in agreeing to let the Chinese win forever is going to be the main story. Come on. Lecturing about hubris when your message is damn the consequences, full speed ahead? If it's a race to build the torment nexus, or a race with a nonzero chance of building the torment nexus by accident, I don't care about winning.
- strictnein 18d ago
  > Lecturing about hubris when your message is damn the consequences, full speed ahead They said that... where?
  - palmotea 18d ago
    > They said that... where? By dismissing concerns and focusing exclusively competition and "winning the race."
    - nilamo 18d ago
      There's a race? I didn't see that at all in the OP
      - pixl97 18d ago
        >in agreeing to let the Chinese win forever Seems like a race to me.
        nilamo 18d ago
        But it isn't a race? I feel like maybe we read different comments... It didn't seem they were saying the first was the winner, just that a closed system can never beat an open one.
    - strictnein 16d ago
      You don't win a race by having a "damn the consequences, full speed ahead" attitude. That's how you lose a race.

EGreg 18d ago

Win what? The race to the bottom always has this competitive language. “If we ban CFCs now the Chinese will win!” “If we ban chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc etc our enemies will triumph! They won’t stop!” “If we switch to biodegradeable plastic then our rivals will have an advantage.” “If we dont externalize the costs to our population, then they will, and then will win!” I think workflows can do the job agents do, 20x cheaper and more predictably and safely. They can completely displace agents, just as HFCs displaced CFCs and then we were able to ban CFCs and phase them out through international COOPERATION. The language of COOPERATION is what saves us vs COMPETITION is all about cutting corners and externalizing costs. Google the Montreal Protocol, Geneva Conventions, Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Unleaded Gasoline etc etc. Agents have got to be marginalized. They are just popular because the labs need to make a ton of money for their investors and recoup their massive spending on training models.

airstrike 18d ago
Those comparisons are pretty irrelevant You can't compare banning football to banning genetic experiments and say "they are both bans and therefore directly comparable"
- EGreg 18d ago
  No one was talking about football. We're talking about replacing most uses of Agents with uses of Workflows. That's the key first step, without which the industry will cry "don't regulate us... do you want China to WIN???"

palmotea 18d ago

> When the history books are written and all is said and done, the hubris of this moment where all the American labs decided to punk their investors and join hand in hand in agreeing to let the Chinese win forever is going to be the main story. Come on. Lecturing about hubris when your message is damn the consequences, full speed ahead? If it's a race to build the torment nexus, or a race with a nonzero chance of building the torment nexus by accident, I don't care about winning.

strictnein 18d ago
> Lecturing about hubris when your message is damn the consequences, full speed ahead They said that... where?
- palmotea 18d ago
  > They said that... where? By dismissing concerns and focusing exclusively competition and "winning the race."
  - nilamo 18d ago
    There's a race? I didn't see that at all in the OP
    - pixl97 18d ago
      >in agreeing to let the Chinese win forever Seems like a race to me.
      - nilamo 18d ago
        But it isn't a race? I feel like maybe we read different comments... It didn't seem they were saying the first was the winner, just that a closed system can never beat an open one.
  - strictnein 16d ago
    You don't win a race by having a "damn the consequences, full speed ahead" attitude. That's how you lose a race.